General Discussion

MineralMan

(151,487 posts)

48. The risk is that the fuel rods will break as they're being removed.

Sun Oct 13, 2013, 01:31 PM

Oct 2013

That would cause additional contamination, and might make it even more difficult to remove other fuel rod assemblies.

However, if they are left there and a major earthquake occurs, which could happen at any time, the entire structure might collapse, which could make removing the fuel rods impossible, and could cause too much nuclear material to come into contact and might lead to a meltdown, partial or complete. That would be a disaster of unknown proportions.

Clearly, removing the fuel rod assemblies before that happens is a better choice, which is what they're about to begin. The process has been planned and tested in a limited way. Now, they think they're ready to remove the fuel rod assemblies, which will be stored in storage pools somewhere on the site. If they are successful, the danger of the structure collapsing will be eliminated. Even if there are problems, if they can remove the bulk of the fuel rod assemblies, the danger will be drastically reduced.

The area is still heavily contaminated, of course. The project is quite hazardous and there are still unknown factors.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

61 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Fukushima Is a Disaster - No Question about It. [View all] MineralMan Oct 2013 OP

no one cares maindawg Oct 2013 #1

And if they don't remove the material? MineralMan Oct 2013 #2

It's a major disaster either way malaise Oct 2013 #50

It has been a major disaster since the earthquake and tsunami. MineralMan Oct 2013 #51

Hopefully they'll stop building them malaise Oct 2013 #52

That would be excellent! MineralMan Oct 2013 #53

+1 to this, but I'd say also, people are stupid generally. closeupready Oct 2013 #59

Excuse me? 99Forever Oct 2013 #3

No, that isn't my premise. MineralMan Oct 2013 #4

Sure sounds like it is. 99Forever Oct 2013 #5

Nope. Read it again. MineralMan Oct 2013 #7

K&R nt Bonobo Oct 2013 #6

Thanks. I appreciate that. MineralMan Oct 2013 #8

I think the genuine concern is that Tepco is in charge of the operation muriel_volestrangler Oct 2013 #9

Perhaps so. However, I've not heard of any proposals that do not involve Tepco. MineralMan Oct 2013 #11

^^This^^ 99Forever Oct 2013 #12

And who would you recommend to be in charge? MineralMan Oct 2013 #14

That's a whole bunch of assuming there. 99Forever Oct 2013 #15

Again, who would you suggest to be in charge of this process? MineralMan Oct 2013 #16

Where have I claimed... 99Forever Oct 2013 #19

No, I don't want anyone to shut up. MineralMan Oct 2013 #24

IAEA oversight might make some more assured. GeorgeGist Oct 2013 #54

That organization is already involved with the Fukushima disaster. MineralMan Oct 2013 #55

No one in Japan wants anything but success and I, for one, greatly appreciate Bonobo Oct 2013 #10

It is my sincere hope that the planning involved in this MineralMan Oct 2013 #13

yes they do need to get the stored stuff off the beach. I suggest storage deep in their mountians Sunlei Oct 2013 #17

My own belief is that no nuclear power plants should have been built anywhere. MineralMan Oct 2013 #20

I agree. They should not have built next to the sea & where it is a fact Tsunamis will come. Sunlei Oct 2013 #26

Yes. But they WERE built. MineralMan Oct 2013 #27

yes it's a clean-up now. They already have dumped enough into the sea to have effect on seafood. Sunlei Oct 2013 #28

Why not shoot for the Moon? randome Oct 2013 #21

Far too much backseat driving on this subject. randome Oct 2013 #18

Yes. I've always opposed nuclear power generation. MineralMan Oct 2013 #22

I was not against it. But I am now. randome Oct 2013 #23

I've been opposed to it since the late 1950s. MineralMan Oct 2013 #25

I'm sorry but I've been here a long time madokie Oct 2013 #47

Building a nuclear plant on a beach in a tsunami/earthquake area Rosa Luxemburg Oct 2013 #29

You are absolutely right. Fukushima should never have been built. MineralMan Oct 2013 #30

But an accupuncturist who thinks that baking soda cures cancer... SidDithers Oct 2013 #31

Yes, well... MineralMan Oct 2013 #32

For Those Who Wonder Why I Oppose Nuclear Power Generation: MineralMan Oct 2013 #33

Arnie Gundersen was asked what he would do if he were in charge: Junkdrawer Oct 2013 #34

Which large engineering company? MineralMan Oct 2013 #36

Arnie says there are 4 or 5 firms capable of the job... Junkdrawer Oct 2013 #38

Ah. OK. Well, if you find his list, let me know. MineralMan Oct 2013 #41

I just emailed Arnie. I'll let you know.... Junkdrawer Oct 2013 #56

Arnie Gundersen interview on TheRealNews... Junkdrawer Oct 2013 #43

I agree with Arne about the need for an international effort. pa28 Oct 2013 #44

The three points he keeps emphasizing: Junkdrawer Oct 2013 #45

Rand Paul says danger is overstated. BootinUp Oct 2013 #35

Does he? MineralMan Oct 2013 #37

Ok, not yet but he probably will, lol. BootinUp Oct 2013 #39

Never mind, then. MineralMan Oct 2013 #40

I had humor though. BootinUp Oct 2013 #42

What is the risk? FreeJoe Oct 2013 #46

The risk is that the fuel rods will break as they're being removed. MineralMan Oct 2013 #48

Good question. Honest answer is No One Knows for Sure..... Junkdrawer Oct 2013 #49

The experts are doing the best that is humanly possible to do. What else need be said? nt Demo_Chris Oct 2013 #57

Not all that long ago I learned on DU that it wasnt really a big deal. bunnies Oct 2013 #58

Another important point: there's a bunny with a pancake on its head. closeupready Oct 2013 #60

And let us not foget... bunnies Oct 2013 #61